So you were afraid to quote the entire post? Do you think I can't remember yesterday?

As I said, you can send people to the doctor all you want for preventative care. There is NO GUARANTEE that it will help simply because people are gonna do what they like to do. If that's eating a box of donuts while injecting heroin, a doctor saying "Hey, fatass, stop injecting heroin" will not reduce insurance costs on the back end.

Honestly, you seem to be someone with zero life experience but with a working knowledge of insurance numbers. Unfortunately, "healthcare for everyone" because you read that it's a good thing isn't correct. Obviously $100 is less than $800,000 but it just doesn't have real world application in this situation.

You should thank me for letting you know I'm not reading a long-winded post addressed to me. Saves you time.

If you think it saves me time, then you must assume you're the only person I intend to have read my response. That's not how message boards work. They're not private messages or emails - anyone who wants can read them. So when I write something, it's for anyone, even if it's in response to something you said.

If you want to read it, fine. If you think it's too long and you don't, fine. That's up to you. Just keep in mind I'll post whatever I want in response, "long-winded" or not.

People who actually NEED medical care aren't going to be deterred by $25 or $125. They're going to go to the doctor. Because they care about their health and they need medical assistance.

You're assuming they actually have the money to be able to afford that co-pay, and not everyone does (which would especially be true if it were as high as $125).

Your "solution" only serves to keep poor people from going to the doctor at all. It does nothing to limit a wealthier person from going (even in unnecessary circumstances) because the $125 doesn't mean as much to them. But the poor person is may not even go if they do need care because the $125 is prohibitive to them. That's why your "solution" doesn't work.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):So you were afraid to quote the entire post? Do you think I can't remember yesterday?

As I said, you can send people to the doctor all you want for preventative care. There is NO GUARANTEE that it will help simply because people are gonna do what they like to do. If that's eating a box of donuts while injecting heroin, a doctor saying "Hey, fatass, stop injecting heroin" will not reduce insurance costs on the back end.

Honestly, you seem to be someone with zero life experience but with a working knowledge of insurance numbers. Unfortunately, "healthcare for everyone" because you read that it's a good thing isn't correct. Obviously $100 is less than $800,000 but it just doesn't have real world application in this situation.

Let's start at the beginning:

You stated that people going to the doctor for things like cuts that need stitches are the reason health care costs are going up.

I disagreed. Not only is the incidence of policy holders using of health coverage unnecessarily relatively low, but also, in the long run, encouraging people to take care of small problems before they become big problems lowers costs.

Then you spewed 3,281 pages of non sequiturs about personal responsibility and preventative care not guaranteeing that people will be healthier because you can't tell people what to do.

Once again you're conflating the issue. Person A is injured/sick/in pain and wants to go to the doctor to try to fix the problem. Person B eats donuts and does heroin. Which person is going to be the one that wants to go to the doctor when (god forbid) they might have been able to solve the problem at home?

Person A is who this discussion (which you started) is about. Not person B.

I've seen the actuarial tables on this stuff and sell group health (along with property and casualty lines) for a living. You run a trucking company and think work comp is comparable to health insurance in terms of incentives.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):So you were afraid to quote the entire post? Do you think I can't remember yesterday?

As I said, you can send people to the doctor all you want for preventative care. There is NO GUARANTEE that it will help simply because people are gonna do what they like to do. If that's eating a box of donuts while injecting heroin, a doctor saying "Hey, fatass, stop injecting heroin" will not reduce insurance costs on the back end.

Honestly, you seem to be someone with zero life experience but with a working knowledge of insurance numbers. Unfortunately, "healthcare for everyone" because you read that it's a good thing isn't correct. Obviously $100 is less than $800,000 but it just doesn't have real world application in this situation.

Let's start at the beginning:

You stated that people going to the doctor for things like cuts that need stitches are the reason health care costs are going up.

I disagreed. Not only is the incidence of policy holders using of health coverage unnecessarily relatively low, but also, in the long run, encouraging people to take care of small problems before they become big problems lowers costs.

Then you spewed 3,281 pages of non sequiturs about personal responsibility and preventative care not guaranteeing that people will be healthier because you can't tell people what to do.

Once again you're conflating the issue. Person A is injured/sick/in pain and wants to go to the doctor to try to fix the problem. Person B eats donuts and does heroin. Which person is going to be the one that wants to go to the doctor when (god forbid) they might have been able to solve the problem at home?

Person A is who this discussion (which you started) is about. Not person B.

I've seen the actuarial tables on this stuff and sell group health (along with property and casualty lines) for a living. You run a trucking company and think work comp is comparable to health insurance in terms of incentives.

No. I theorized that mass health care would cause health care costs to go up because people would now make unnecessary visits because "I have insurance." So maybe you've just been confused for the last few days.

And, from your second sentence, I can tell you've been confused for the last few days. We were talking about Obamacare covering EVERYBODY. You know, like people who don't have insurance now.

Preventative care WILL NOT guarantee a healthier population. It will help some but certainly the minority because, as I said, people are going to do what they want to do. Doctor's orders only last until you walk out the door.

Person A and person B will both have healthcare coverage under Obamacare.

You may be a wonderful insurance rep. You fail miserably at reading comprehension and retention. That makes me sad. You either have a mental issue(like ADHD or autism) that you don't take care of or you're just kind of dumb. I don't know which it is but it makes me sad.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):I'm sure panda didn't want this to turn into a healthcare debate but this is one of the problems with rising healthcare/insurance rates.

Man A cuts his hand. Pretty deep but certainly not life-threatening. Maybe could use a stitch or two. He has no insurance. He dumps some iodine or alcohol on it to cleanse the wound. Cleans it up, slaps a band-aid on it and goes on with his day.

Man B cuts his hand in the same manner. He has insurance. He goes to the doctor. Doctor dumps some cleansing solution on it, cleans it up, throws a stitch in it, issues pain meds and an antiseptic solution then sets up an appointment 10 days later.

Man A is healed in 13 days. Man B is healed in 9 days. Man A spent $2.37 for a dozen band-aids and 1 oz of iodine. Man B's insurance is billed $483.

The end result is people with insurance will go to the doctor even if it's not necessary simply because they have insurance.

I think the problem in that case is the cost of the doctor, not the person using the insurance they (or their employer) pay for.

I'm not a medical professional. If I cut my had deep enough that it probably needs a stitch or two, I'm going to go to the doctor. For several reasons. I want the wound to heal faster. I want a professional to look at it and make sure it really isn't that bad. I want to avoid infection. And, yes, I have insurance so the cost to me personally is relatively small (not including the thousands in insurance premiums I've already paid).

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/29/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):The bigger problem with healthcare is the cost and insurance coverage. Obamacare doesn't really address that other than to say "This is what will be paid." Doctors now have to decide the "write-off" as tec mention or to deny service to those whose insurance won't pay the desired price. Therefore, those on medicaid and whatever abomination that is Obamacare will have less options. Less options = longer waits and, quite possibly, less quality in care.

The entire topic turned to Obamacare and it's coverage of everyone in the US.

And I'm back to this: "No. I theorized that mass health care would cause health care costs to go up because people would now make unnecessary visits because "I have insurance." So maybe you've just been confused for the last few days."